"extreme moral relativism and a certain a-moral 'nonchalance' appear to be more prevalent among some European commenters than American ones here."

That's because Europe lost its Christian identity. America has not... yet (and I pray never).

"But I do think that 'Europe' has changed more in terms of its 'values' than the US has over the past half century."

Marxism and proximity...

"Yes, I do believe that both Britain and the US have had 'single' (unmarried) government leaders in the past."

I looked up the American president. It was the 15th, James Buchanan. Apparently his niece had to fulfill the social obligations as there was no First Lady. I guess that answers my question - a First Lady is important as the White House is, after all, the People's House and the First Lady has to act as hostess. Buchanan was the only unmarried elected American president.

"Sarkozy shows a remarkable lack of recognition of his leadership position as a role model for his country's young people, and for others as well, and rather disturbing vanity in terms of what he wants to be 'projecting'."

Elitist narcissism of the Left.

"On the other hand, with Bill Clinton's ever-vanity and self-absorption still so fresh in the mind"

More elitist narcissism of the Left.

"- and perhaps soon to be back in the white house as 'First Men' as well - Americans better should not jump to any quick conclusions. Human weakness is universal, and certain 'trends' are common to all western cultures."

It would be a disaster. I hope and pray that the recent polls are accurate regarding Hillary's declining lead and growing antipathy among American voters. She has stumbled a great deal lately, starting with the pathetic evasion she displayed regarding the Spitzer debate on illegals' drivers licenses. Then we find out that her aides used plants at townhall meetings to ask Hillary softball questions: what an insecure woman!

And of course, lest we all forget, she was responsible for the "condom Christmas tree" at the White House when Bill was playing elite celebrity with his Hollywood cronies.

I have to say that in personal moral conduct during his tenure, President Bush has been exemplary. And I think that's partly why the Left hates him so much.

"certain 'trends' are common to all western cultures."

Those trends are paganism.

@ Atheling

Well, yes, there have always been significant cultural differences across the pond.  But, I think that in the past Europe displayed much greater cultural diversity than it does today.  I don't mean in terms of languages, but in terms of (acceptable) public 'mores'.  While in the USA, 'San Francisco values' are representative of ...well of...San Francisco, Hollywood, and perhaps a few other places, and the (western) 9th Circuit Court as well, these 'values' can be readily seen on display on virtually all major media in Western Europe today.  While it is very dangerous to generalise too quickly and too easily, and the commentariat on this website is clearly not a representative sample of both continents, it is nevertheless striking - at least to me - that extreme moral relativism and a certain a-moral 'nonchalance' appear to be more prevalent among some European commenters than American ones here.  Although several culturally-mixed characters (like Amsterdamsky and myself, for instance)  provide perhaps counter-observations (hopefully in opposite directions, though).  So, I would not take a firm position on this. But I do think that 'Europe' has changed more in terms of its 'values' than the US has over the past half century.

Yes, I do believe that both Britain and the US have had 'single' (unmarried) government leaders in the past. Perhaps Disraeli in Britain, and I can't recall the American president(s) that fit(s) the bill.  As I tried to say earlier, I do not think that it is a matter of being single or being married, but rather a matter of behavior and 'values'.  In this particular case, Sarkozy shows a remarkable lack of recognition of his leadership position as a role model for his country's young people, and for others as well, and rather disturbing vanity in terms of what he wants to be 'projecting'.   On the other hand, with Bill Clinton's ever-vanity and self-absorption still so fresh in the mind - and perhaps soon to be back in the white house as 'First Men' as well - Americans better should not jump to any quick conclusions. Human weakness is universal, and certain 'trends' are common to all western cultures.

"...the different reactions of yourself and Atheling, are reflective of a much deeper and growing cultural divergence between 'elites' in Europe and America."

I think that difference has existed well back into the 19th century, hence the Mark Twain quote in the other related thread.

I don't have time to research it right now, but I can't recall a President in our past who was single (never married or divorced) when he was elected... We Americans seem to prefer a married man... more stable perhaps?

Have the British ever elected a single Prime Minister? Just wondering (hint, Atlanticist911!)

@ George2

I agree with you that Sarkozy, after his divorce, is now a 'free' man (in a rather superficial sense).  But, I also agree with Atheling that your comparison with Reagan is not valid.  One cannot imagine Reagan behaving in such a way as the President of his country.  He was very much aware of the significance of his office and of the need for some minimum decorum.  Not so much to foster respect for him personally, but rather for the office.  Indeed, one major problem of democracies today is that people can no longer easily separate the person from the office.  It undermines patriotism, and thus the long-run consequences could be...emormous, i.e. for survival of the state itself.  A more appropriate comparison would have been with Bill Clinton. Actual behavior is more telling than formalities like civil 'divorce'.

At least, you must concede that Sarkozy is showing poor judgment in choosing his current 'mate'.  I fear, that the different reactions of yourself and Atheling, are reflective of a much deeper and growing cultural divergence between 'elites' in Europe and America. I write "elites", because the public on both continents has always been captive of celebrity culture, to its own detriment.

You miss my point.

I'm not going to go into the divorce issue, as I'm an orthodox Roman Catholic, which should speak for itself.

However, your analogy IS erroneous, as it is apples to oranges. The rest of your comment is simply blathering.

BTW, please provide documentation of those alleged "affairs" - and it better not be a pseudo-bio by Kitty Kelley.

So it is ok to divorce as long as one is not president? A divorce is a divorce. God or the law (whatever you choose) doesn't make any difference between presidents and non-presidents. Everybody is equal either before the law or God.

So it is ok to have an affair once you're divorced as long as you don't flaunt it publicly? I much rather have someone who comes out for what he is than for someone who can only be himself in the closet. I prefer a real man or woman as president than someone who tries to act as a president. The latter is always wrong: the role of president does not exist. You can only play yourself. You either fit as president or you don't. You cannot act for years as a president. Sooner or later it shows. Reagan was a president. It is too soon to judge Sarkozy.

Who says Sarkozy is screwing on the taxpayer's money? You can say many things about Sarkozy but don't think he and his entourage would be so stupid to fall in that trap. A president has his security personnel whether he/she is with someone or not. What did surprise me is that the French president is not flying with an equivalent of an Airforce 1. Maybe to avoid the-president-is-screwing-on-the-taxpayer's-money-trap?

Reagan wasn't president when he divorced Wyman. If he had "affairs", it wasn't on the taxpayer's dollar and he didn't flaunt it publicly.

Since the latest presidential screw is so important for TBJ, when are we going to hear about Reagan's affairs after his divorce of Jane Wyman? Or has Reagan gained the status of untouchable? 

..that Sarko sure gets around!...More so than (Bill) Clinton....And that Bosnian babe...MERCY!!!!..or perhaps I should say MERCI!!!...;-D.....But I agree, who cares who he is having "relationships" with. That's all tabloid fodder.....

Who cares whom Sarko is screwing?

This is further proof, as if any were needed, that the EU represents a post-modern return to decadent, non-religious monarchical government, i.e. despotism. There is no need for republican austerity when the leadership is unaccountable and part of a monolithic ruling caste. No one should be surprised Bruni campaigned for Royale for there is no more meaningful difference between Royale and Sarkozy than between Blair and Cameron. Sarkozy is carrying on like any little despot would, benefiting from the huge gulf between ruler and ruled. The age of the citizen is wanning. We are seeing the end of politics and governance through a "growing concensus." It will, of course, end badly, for history never ends and things fall apart. But for now I think we can say that the democratic revolutions have failed and Versailles has been replaced by that glass cube in Paris and that prison-like building in Brussels. These people are traitors; let them vacation in Arab lands - may they never return.

They really are the scum of the Earth , these "superiors" of ours , the French lecture us on their superior culture and beautiful language .... let the understand  this ... Keep it in your pants and remember the meaning of adultery and that it is a sin .

It would appear that a portion of the European leadership is as pathetic as ours vis a vis its value as role models. Having read the article and some of the links found therein, it pretty much resembles the lifestyles of many of our American politicians, trashy celebs and the minority underclass. You know, like who's boinking whom on a given day or night and who's having out of wedlock births, unless we're supposed to be happy about the fact that at least they're having kids for Pete's sake!
I mean Hell, sure they're human but shouldn't people in positions of leadership at least appear to be a cut above the the Flavah Flaves of the world?  What ever happened to "It's not how it is that matters but how it LOOKS!"
In the past we learned, for the most part, about the shortcomings of the famous well after they had departed this life
And we wonder why Western civilization is going to " la merde"? Come to think of it, maybe that's waiting in the wings, our leaders "relieving" themselves in public.